HL Deb 21 April 1942 vol 122 cc673-6
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I beg to ask the question that stands in my name.

[The question was as follows:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is the practice of the Government Departments to insist that any person who uses a Departmental car with the consent of the Department concerned shall have taken out a third-party insurance in accordance with the law, and if not, why not.]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)

My Lords, in answer to the question I would point out that Part II of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which provides for insurance against third-party risks, does not apply to vehicles and persons in the public service of the Crown; Parliament doubtless made this exception because in cases where the Crown ought to pay there can be no question that the resources of the Crown will not be sufficient. The general policy of the Government is, as I have explained in recent debates, to assimilate the position of the Crown in respect of injuries caused by the negligent driving of Crown vehicles, to the position of private owners in similar circumstances. Private owners do not insist that the drivers they employ should personally take out a third-party insurance, and the Crown does not do so either. I venture to think that the noble Lord's question is not very accurately phrased, as I assume that he is referring to a case in which the actual driver is not acting within the scope of his employment at all, but is using the vehicle for his private purposes without consent. I should suppose that a person who uses a Departmental car with the consent of the Department would normally not be regarded as acting beyond his authority.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I am afraid that I am not quite sure that I understand what the noble and learned Viscount has been good enough to say, I understand the Road Traffic Act to provide that anyone who uses a car is bound to have a third-party insurance in respect of the use of that, car. Therefore, prima facie it seemed to me—I may be wrong—that it was a legal obligation resting on any person driving any car. Whether it is a Government car or any other car makes no difference; an individual is still liable for any wrong that he may commit. As I understand it, the whole purpose and policy of this Act is that he is bound to take out third-party insurance. I certainly have learnt, with great surprise—if this is true—that he is not bound to take out such insurance. In one of the cases which I have brought to your Lordships' notice a driver was fined because he had not done so. I presume, therefore, that the court which fined him had no doubt that he was bound to take out such insurance. The point is that what private employers do is between them and their consciences; but the Government are bound to see that the laws of this country are carried out. If it is the law that anybody in charge of one of their vehicles must take out a third-party insurance surely it is a matter of common sense and common justice that they should see that it is done.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Perhaps with your Lordships' permission I may add a word to what I have already said. I should be so unwilling not to make myself plain to the noble Viscount, for I know what interest he takes in this matter and what study he has devoted to it. I think you may take it as a universal fact that a private owner of a car does not make his chauffeur take out a third-party policy of insurance to protect him, the chauffeur, because if the chauffeur goes out on a joy ride he is doing something which is quite outside his duty. It would seem to be very extraordinary for the private owner of a car, in those circumstances, to treat his chauffeur as if he were not going to do his duty. The same thing of course applies to the Government. I agree that my noble friend, so far as I understand him, is quite correct when he says that if a person who is driving a car is not driving it on behalf of his employer but is driving it on his own account, for his own pleasure, such a person, according to the law, should take out third-party insurance. If he does not do so, then I think the noble Viscount was quite right in saying that he is liable to be fined, and the case he mentioned was one in which a man was actually fined. That remains true, so far as I know. What is not true is that a Government Department, by some process I can hardly understand, compels everybody who might be driving a Government car to take out a policy against the possibility of his driving it for his own pleasure. I do not see how the War Office, for instance, can say to every Army driver: "We must have you take out a third-party insurance or we must take it out for you, to cover any breach of your own employment or duty because you may attempt to run about without our authority." Therefore my answer, if the noble Viscount will be good enough to look at it, is that there is no difference between the position of a private employer and the position of a Government Department.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

There ought to be. That is just the point. Surely the whole purpose of that part of the Act was to see that if someone suffered from the negligent driving of a vehicle on a road he would have some substantial damages for injury done to him. That, I understand, is the whole purpose of that part of the Act. At present, it is clear that so far as Government cars are concerned a person who is injured has not got that cover. If a man who is put in charge of a car by a Government Department goes out without the authority of the Government and causes an accident, the person who suffers from the accident has no remedy at all. I venture to submit to your Lordships that that is a really scandalous condition of affairs.